STATE
VS. EDWARD RONALD ATES
A-2308-09T3
Defendant
appealed his conviction for the murder of his ex-son-in-law, arguing the
unconstitutionality of the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance
Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 to -34, because it permitted the interception
of telephone calls between individuals located entirely outside New Jersey. The court rejected this argument,
finding no infirmity so long as the listening post was located in New Jersey.
Defendant also argued that the State
should have been barred from using all intercepted telephone calls because the State
recorded a telephone call between defendant and his
attorney. The trial judge
precluded the use only of the calls intercepted after the recording of the
attorney-client communication and the court concluded this was an appropriate remedy
for the reasons expressed in the trial judge's written opinion, State v. Ates,
__ N.J. Super. __ (Law Div. 2009). 05-17-12
No comments:
Post a Comment